The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) of 1992 was a
federal ban prohibiting 46 states from allowing sports betting (Nevada
& 3 others were grandfathered in due to previous laws). The ban did
not outlaw gambling on sports at the federal level, but simply forbade
states from permitting it. Former & current NJ governors Chris
Christie & Phil Murphy, sued on the basis of the 10th amendment,
citing the federal power to “impermissibly commandeer the
regulatory power of States”. NJ wanted to reap the tax revenue
from limited in-house sports betting. The NCAA opposed it. The Supreme
Court just finally struck
down the ban. The majority opinion concurred, not on whether it should
be banned, but that if congress wants it banned they have to do so at
the federal level, then regulate & enforce it. Otherwise leave it
up to the states to decide
accordingly if & how to do it in each state.

Gambling revenues from March Madness plus all of college & pro
sports would be a multi-billion dollar industry, allowing tax revenue
states won’t want to leave on the table. Critics worry about
everything from the integrity of sports with game fixing, to the social
effects of compulsive gambling.

Should the feds just ban it at the federal level, or allow the states to
be the laboratories of democracy? Or might there be a too big of a rush
too soon leading to many problems on the way?

There are interesting parallels with other issues. If the feds permit
or ban something they have to pay for its regulation and enforcement.
But that goes both ways. Immigration falls under federal, and some argue
this absolves California from cooperating with ICE enforcement. With
drugs like marijuana (brought up by the dissenting justices), some state
laws also outlaw it along with the federal, but many are legalizing it
despite federal bans remaining in place.

What precedent do you think this may set and what effects do you foresee
in any number of other economic and other legal realms where state vs.
federal law may be in conflict?

This is a hard question to answer, as many have views on gambling, and
since gambling is illegal outside of casinos, and since it is a big
black market industry, there really isn't a right response to this
question. Do I believe the federal level should have control? Yes, but
with so much going on, there isn't much they can do to crack down 100%
on all illegal practices of gambling.

I think that history shows us that when the a government like ours tries
to prohibit things like drugs, alcohol, etc, people find another way to
access what they are not allowed to have. Prohibiting gambling will
create a big mess on top of our already bigger mess. The federal
government should regulate it, perhaps through government approved
gambling only. I have no experience with the gambling culture as it has
never intrigued me, in fact I don't ready get why gambling is so
important to people. But that's just it, it is something that is
important to people, therefore banning it would create more disobedient
citizens who want to gamble. Just as some smoke marijuana or drank
alcohol anyway, despite the law.

Interesting question. I believe that the less our government is involved
with controlling vices, the better. I think that the government should
only interfere when people's vices are hurting others, like drunk
driving. Other than those specific situations, the government should not
be involved at all. People need to have free choice to indulge in
whatever suits their fancy. Outlets are important to keeping people
happy and when we limit people's outlets, stress and frustration spills
over into other parts of daily life.

This is an interesting topic. I personally have no qualms with sports
betting, and I find it fun. People do it everywhere, even though it
hasn't been legal everywhere. They just find alternative ways to gamble
where it's illegal, thus the states not getting any tax revenue on it!
I don't think that legalizing gambling will compromise the integrity of
sports at all because people already gamble, and the integrity of sports
is already compromised on many levels (politics, performance enhancing
drugs, etc). I think legalizing it will only help state's tax revenue.

I think it's asinine that something can be illegal on the federal level
and legal at the state level. It makes no sense, because we're now
playing by two sets of rules. You cited the example of marijuana, which
in my opinion is the greatest example out there. We now have fourteen
states that have legalized it in recreational form, and it's legal in
our bordering country, Canada. It's medicinally legal in many more,
however, if you take it across the border from Colorado where it's legal
to Utah where it's not legal, you're now subject to federal punishment.
On top of that, the CBD strand has known and proven healing properties.
People literally can sit in jail for something that they bought legally,
that is healthy, because the federal government has to be involved in
everything. It's bizarre and nonsensical. I think the Federal
government needs to cut back on their involvement in laws that don't
involve them and allow the states to make laws that benefit them.

Questions like this make me glad I am not in politics as I can see both
sides of the issue. I do tend to fall in the no gambling at all camp as
it can go too far. People who cannot put food on the table for their
children have no business gambling, whether it is sports related or not.
The government (state and federal) has to then pick up the pieces and
provide food and shelter for children that their parents gambled away.

I do think that betting on sports can lead to game fixing. I think
FIFA, (the governing body of soccer) may have a little experience with
that. I am sure some of that goes on already, but I see an explosion
of that if gambling is legal. So when I watch a game (any sport) right
now, there is a slim chance of it being "fixed", but after
legalizing gambling, it will be hard to watch as I will be wondering if
that bad ref call was on purpose or just human error, and why so many of
them all of a sudden? A bad decision of a player/coach will be more
heavily scrutinized (by who, who will police this, and what are the
consequences of game fixing?

I do think that the tax revenue from gambling can only benefit the
state. Let's just hope it is used wisely.

Personally, I disagree with gambling, but I don't think that it should
be banned. If people want to gamble (on sports or anything else), they
will find a way to do it whether or not it is legal (one caveat though:
gambling can and does harm people, so maybe it should be illegal as by
gambling you are encroaching on others lives and potentially wrecking
people's lives). I also agree that the states should have more control
and the federal government less control, so I was happy when the ban was
struck down.

Despite being glad the ban was struck down, I am worried about problems
that will come up. There is now a greater chance of games being rigged.
I don't want to watch rigged games; and I don't want the teams I support
to be playing in rigged games. Also, the effects of gambling on society
have never been beneficial. I have never seen an instance where gambling
is good. It will be interesting to see what the individual states decide
to do about whether or not to regulate gambling.

Right now, the federal government seems to be much stronger than the
state government. When this country was founded, it was with the intent
that the states have a decent amount of power too; enough to even rival
the federal government. For that reason, I am in favor of the federal
government peeling back more bans and regulations and allowing each
state to decide for themselves what they would like to do, whether for
marijuana, public schooling, or any other issue. Hopefully, with this
ban being struck down, the trend will continue with states being able to
choose more what to regulate.

All this is not to undermine the authority of the federal government; I
realize the need for some federal regulation, etc. I just think the
states should have more power, so our country will be aligned more as
the founding fathers set it up.

Hey Andy,
Gambling itself is a very odd concept. I was just in Las Vegas last week
and it's almost sad to see the number of old people sitting at these
machines all day long, probably blowing away their life savings. While
on an excursion, a lady in our group had mentioned she lost $20,000 the
last time she was in Vegas. $20,000! That's insane! I understand that
each person is able to do whatever they want to do with their money but
seriously, there are people starving and she just randomly blew $20,000!

So back to your topic, people are going to bet money regardless so I
guess the states may as well try and gain some revenue for it. Maybe we
can use the additional funds to help support education and initiatives
to help children.

Personally speaking, I have no problem with gambling and sports. History
has proven that where there is a will there is a way. That in itself
speaks to the integrity issue. I agree with many of the above posts; tax
revenue from gambling would benefit the states. How it might best be
used and who decides is a different topic!

As to your question concerning precedent (drugs, Immigration,
etc.),,,hmmm,,,maybe! This is a bit fuzzy for me but, if I understand
this correctly, the worry is that the federal government cannot force
states to comply with federal law. Wouldn't it have more to do with the
Constitution? For instance, gambling and Immigration are two different
issues. Gambling isn't addressed in the Constitution while Immigration
is! Wouldn't states lose on laws that are guided by the Constitution?

Thanks for the thought provoking forum! Clearly, I need to dig a little
deeper into the issues.

I'll admit that this forum is going a little over my head, but I've
never been a big fan of gambling. Sure, if things are played out right
you can get some mad money, but if not, depending on how much you've
bet, you can be left with a pretty big hole in your wallet. Sports
aren't meant to be something you gamble on, they were supposed to be
meant as a form of entertainment for viewers and for something people
could play for fun or for school. Either way, while I can see that the
money being made from March Madness can make a lot of states perk up,
what are they going to do with that money exactly? Michigan has a long
list of problems that needs to be fixed. We've got the Flint water
crisis, there are thousands upon thousands of potholes that need to be
fixed, and a whole lot of other things. If that money isn't going
towards fixing these problems, then I can only assume they'll go to
somewhere else that doesn't benefits thousands of people.

I feel that sports/regular gambling will happen regardless if it is
regulated/legal or not. During periods of when it is illegal fights get
fixed, poker hands get fixed the same way that they do when it is legal.
States should be the responsible for how and if they want to allow
gambling into their communities as well as committees or foundations
that are in charge of the sport or etc to regulate this. On one hand,
yes it will bring in revenue but parties say that it brings in criminal
activity as well. But what if other venues were built where say the
casino was to be built? Crime may follow any new form of business that
is built there.

This is definitely a topic that pushes the envelope on states rights to
decide, interfering with personal decisions to engage in such activities
if they would like to.

As I haven't been here in a long time, I had to stop in and say hello
Mr.Andy. Glad to see you still here and to be back!

Great educational topic and love the responses!!

For me, I think gambling is that of being similar to the gun topic. I
say this because gambling and guns are not the problem when used in
responsible ways. This is merely my opinion, though I can support it
with many facts or supporting evidence,but in science or any argent,
someone could always find something saying the opposite.

I do find it very significant you mentioned our 10th amendment and want
to ask this, does anyone think this would also relate to any other
"rights" we have?

This topic is very interesting and look forward to hearing any further
responses to this.